This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the binutils project.
Re: i386-pc-nto-qnx patch
- From: "Graeme Peterson" <gp at qnx dot com>
- To: jtc at acorntoolworks dot com
- Cc: binutils at sources dot redhat dot com
- Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2002 20:01:32 -0400 (EDT)
- Subject: Re: i386-pc-nto-qnx patch
> "Graeme Peterson" <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> > Here is a patch for i386-pc-nto-qnx for inclusion in
> > GNU binutils. Thanks to all for your help.
> > Thanks.
> > Looking forward to any feedback.
> You'll need ChangeLog entries for all these changes.
Mmm. Wondered about that. I'll look for info on format, etc...
> Aside from the BFD changes, these changes are similar to the binutils
> port I recently submitted. However, I think linker configuration is
> superior in my port. Mine has emulparms/elf_i386_qnx.sh inheriting
> from elf_i386.sh and elf_qnx.sh, eliminating duplicate definitions and
> setting things up so that definitions common to all QNX ports can live
> in one place.
Yes, that sounds better. It is the emulparms equivalent of what I did
(with help from various and sundry) in the bfd backend.
> Since then, I've split it into elf_qnx60.sh and elf_qnx61.sh, as the
> ELF interpreter is different in 6.0 and 6.1. I think it's marginally
> better to set the interpreter in the linker, since that allows the
> same gcc config to target both versions of the OS. At least this is
> true with my gcc port.
I will have to educate myself here. Can't comment yet...
> The config triple is i86-*-nto-qnx* in bfd, and i86-*-nto*
> in gas and ld. These should probably be consistant. I'd recommend the
> latter, especially if/when we have to distinguish between versions as
> the master config.guess will return a pattern like i386-pc-nto-qnx6.10.
Yup again. That looks better. Consistancy is always good. I'll make that
> J.T. Conklin